sive than any discourse. Since, therefore, there can be nothing more equivocal and ambiguous than words, it would indeed be unreasonable to make them amount to high treason. Of this opinion were Stamford, Ld. Coke, Ld. Hale,* Sir Michael Foster,† and Sir William Blackstone, whose opinion has just been cited; and in the reign of Charles the First, some very atrocious words having been spoken concerning the king by one Pine, all the Judges certified, that "Though the words§ were as wicked as they might be, yet that they were no treason; for unless it be by some particular statute, no words will be treason."

It seems clear however, that words joined to an act may explain it, and that words of persuasion to kill the king, or manifesting an agreement, or consultation, or direction, to that purpose, are sufficient overt acts of compassing his death.

It has frequently been held, that words committed to print or writing, and published, amount to an overt act of treason, to prove the compassing the king's ¶ death; but even in such case it seems that a publication is necessary, though in arbitrary times, the contrary has been adjudged, particularly in the instances of Peachum,** a clergyman, and of Algernon Sydney; the former of whom was convicted for treasonable passages in a sermon never preached, and

* 1 Hale, 111. 323.

† Fost. Cr. L. 200.

14 Bl. Com. 80. § Cro. Car. 125, See Haw. Pl. Cr. c. 17. s. 32, 33, 34, 35, &c. Fost. Cr. L. 200. 1 Hale, 111. 323.

Haw. Pl. Cr. c. 17. s. 37. T2 Rol. 89, 90. Fos. 346. 5 Bac. Abr. 117.

** Cro. Car. 125.

Fost. 202.

11 Modern, 322. 1 St. Tr. 977. 3 St. Tr. 228

+ Foster, 198.

the latter for some speculative opinions contained in papers discovered in his private closet; but so unsatisfactory did the grounds of these convictions appear, that Peachum was not executed, and the attainder of Sydney was reversed.

A contempt of the king's person may be by imputing to him the want of capacity or integrity,* by charging him with a breach of his coronation oath,† cursing him, wishing him ill, spreading false rumours concerning his intentions,‡—or, in short, by maliciously asserting any thing concerning him, which tends to lessen him in the esteem of his subjects, weaken his government, or raise jealousies between him and his people. These are considered as high contempts and misprisions, and are punishable as misdemeanors at Common Law.

So to deny the King's title to the crown, or to raise doubts concerning it, in unadvised discourse, would amount to a contempt at Common Law; and to do it deliberately and advisedly, if it did not constitute treason, would at least subject the offender§ to the penalties of a præmunire.

In the reign of Elizabeth, all the Justices and Barons of the Coif assembled at Sergeant's-Inn, concerning a book, devised by one Brown, containing the following passage, "Every preacher runneth to the Queen now, as though he were to be directed by her to tarry for reformations to be had for matters of the church. If the Magistrates will agree, all is well;-if they will not, they are not of

* Haw. Pl. Cr. c. 23. 4 Bl. Comin. 123. Noy, 105. Haw. Pl. Cr. c. 23. s. 5.

Black. Comm. 123. Haw. Pl. Cr. e. 17. s. 35.

See 3 E. 1. c. 34.

#Dig. L. L. 65.

the church, and it is a shame to tarry for them, or for a parliament, or proclamation" And it was held by all, that this was a moving of insurrection and sedition.*

In the Digest of the Law of Libel it is said, that at the same meeting, Sir Edmund Anderson, Ch. J. of the Common Pleas, propounded the following case to his brethren :-A person had caused the arms of the queen to be painted upon a post în a church in Suffolk, with this inscription painted near them, "I know thy works, that thou art neither hot nor cold; I would thou wert either hot or cold; therefore, because thou art lukewarm, it will come to pass that I will spew thee out of my mouth." But the Justices came to no resolution.

John Wilkes was convicted upon an information filed by the Attorney-General,§ for printing and publishing a malicious libel, entitled The North Briton, No. 45, tending to vilify and traduce the King and his government-to impeach and disparage his veracity and honour-and to represent and make it believed that his Majesty's most gracious speech, delivered from his throne to the parliament, on Tuesday the 19th day of April, 1763, contained many falsities and gross impositions upon the public; and that his Majesty had suffered the honour and dignity of his crown to be sunk and prostituted, and the in

*The question proposed was, whether the publication was an offence within the 23d Eliz. c. 2. which was a temporary stat.; but under the construction which the Judges put upon this book, it was a libel at Common Law.

↑ D. L. L. 66. Sav. 49.

Dig. L. L. 69. Informations were also filed against Kearsley and Williams, for printing and publishing the same.

$ Charles Yorke, Esq.

terests of his subjects and allies to be treacherously betrayed; and also to render the king and his government contemptible and odious, and to excite tumults, commotions, and insurrections, &c. &c.

An information* was filed by the Attorney-General against the printer and proprietor of the Morning Chronicle newspaper, for publishing the following paragraph, with a malicious intent to alienate from the King the affections of his subjects:"What a crowd of blessings rush upon one's mind, that might be bestowed upon the country, in the event of a total change of system. Of all monarchs, indeed, since the revolution, the successor of George the Third will have the finest opportunity of becoming nobly popular."

Lord Ellenborough, C. J. in summing up to the jury, observed, "The first sentence admits of an innocent interpretation- What a crowd of blessings rush upon one's mind, that might be bestowed upon the country, in the event of a total change of system.' The fair meaning of the expression, change of system,' I think, is a change of political system, not a change in the frame of the established government, but in the measures of policy which have been for some time pursued. By total change of system, is certainly not meant subversion or demolition; for the descent of the crown to the successor of his Majesty is mentioned immediately after. The writer goes on to speak of the blessings that may be enjoyed upon the accession of the Prince of Wales; and therefore cannot be understood to

* 1 Camp. Rep.

allude to a change inconsistent with the full vigour of the monarchical part of the constitution. Now I do not know that merely saying, there would be blessings from a change of system, without reference to the period at which they may be expected, is expressing a wish or a sentiment that may not be innocently expressed in reviewing the political condition of the country. The information treats this as a libel on the person of his Majesty, and his personal administration of the government of the country. But there may be error in the present system, without any vicious motives, and with the greatest virtues, on the part of the reigning soyereign. He may be misled by the ministers he employs, and a change of system may be desirable from their faults. He may himself, notwithstanding the utmost solicitude for the happiness of his people, take an erroneous view of some great question of policy, either foreign or domestic. I know of but one Being to whom error may not be imputed. If a person who admits the wisdom and virtues of his Majesty, laments that in the exercise of these, he has taken an unfortunate and erroneous view of the interests of his dominions, I am not prepared to say that this tends to degrade his Majesty, or to alienate the affection of his subjects. I am not prepared to say that this is libellous: but it must be with perfect decency and respect, and without any imputation of bad motives. Go one step further, and say or insinuate, that his Majesty acts from any partial or corrupt view, or with an intention to favour or oppress any individual or class of men, and it would become most libellous.

However, merely to rep